Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs … v. Raja Ram and Others am and Others
Case Details
RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-540-1998 (O&M) Reserved on Reserved on:-22.09.2025 Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 Date of Decision : Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs Sukhbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs ……Appellant versus Raja Ram and Others am and Others ….. Respondents ….. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of parties Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from Name of respondent No.1 is deleted from Vide order dated 15.01.1999. Vide order dated 15.01.1999. Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate with Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Buta Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. -.- MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, 1. This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree This Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist the judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995, the Class, Jagadhri. ourt and decree dated 19.04.1995, the trial Court decreed the suit the suit in favour of the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh. judgment of the plaintiff Sukhbir Singh. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 decree dated 22.12.1997 the learned Additional District Judge the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri set
Legal Reasoning
laintiff. aside that decree and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. aside that decree and dismissed the suit of the p Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction The plaintiff Sukhbir Singh instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the restraining the defendants from interfering in the actual physical possession of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -2- the land plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger-cane and rice crops over the land plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger plaintiff and from cutting and removing the suger measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra measuring 7 Kanals 11 marlas, bearing khewat No.95, Khatauni No.155, Khasra Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, Nos.71/11 situated in the revenue of Village Deodhar, HB No.72, Tehsil Jagadhri, 83. Further with the prayer for restraining the as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83. Further with the prayer for restraining the 83. Further with the prayer for restraining the as per jamabandi for the year 1982 ants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. defendants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. ants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. ants from taking the possession of the suit land forcibly from the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land from the last 15 years as tenant Gair Marusi suit land from the last 15 years as tenant and had been paying the Gair Marusi and had been paying the landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants Batai to the landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants landlord regularly. It was further alleged that the land of the defendants was also situated adjoining to the suit property was also situated adjoining to the suit property and defendants, claiming that they and defendants, claiming that they have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, have been allotted the suit land by the State Government from the Surplus pool, ning the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and had been threatening the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and ning the plaintiff to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land and had been threate to cut the crops from the same. to cut the crops from the same 3. Upon notice, the defendants filed their written statement and Upon notice, t denied filed their written statement and denied showing that the land the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment/award showing that the land the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment the plaintiff’s possession and relied upon allotment They further stated that Halqa Patwari was declared surplus and allotted to them. They further stated that Halqa Patwari They further stated that Halqa Patwari was declared surplus and allotted to them. by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total by mistake had entered the name of the plaintiff over the suit land out of the total land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas and the same fact was revealed land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas when they and the same fact was revealed when they about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in came to know about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in about the present suit and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same. the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same the suit land as they had sown their crops in the suit land and harvested the same 4. 5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the facts. parties, following issues have been framed:- parties, following issues have been framed: From the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed: From the pleadings of the 1. Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant? (OPP) as tenant? (OPP) 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? (OPD) Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? (OPD) 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi (OPD) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? (OPD) TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -3- 4. entitled to special costs under Section 35- Whether defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35 entitled to special costs under Section 35 A CPC? (OPD) A CPC? (OPD) 5. Relief. 6. 1 and called Ajaib Singh as The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and called Ajaib Singh as The plaintiff examined himself as PW The plaintiff examined himself as PW PW-2. The plaintiff relied principally upon 2. The plaintiff relied principally upon following following revenue documents:- i) Ex. P1: Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982 for the year 1982–83, ii) Ex. P2: Khasra Girdawari for crops (c overing rabi 1983 to rabi P2: Khasra Girdawari for crops (covering rabi 1983 to rabi 1988), 1988), iii) Ex. P3: Copy of Jamabandifor the year 1987 iii) for the year 1987–88, P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari / iv) Ex. P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari / P4, P5, P6: Subsequent copies of Khasra Girdawari / iv) Jamabandiup to 1992–93, Jamabandi v) P7: Copy of Khasra Girdawari dated 25.3.1994. Ex. P7: Copy of Khasra Girdawari dated 25.3.1994. 7. The defendants examined DW-1 Rattan Singh and DW The defendants examined DW 2 Om Prakash 1 Rattan Singh and DW-2 Om Prakash D1, which is the allotment/award document and other and placed on record Ex. D1, which is the allotment/award document and other D1, which is the allotment/award document and other and placed on record ared surplus and allotted revenue material showing that the land in dispute was declared surplus and allotted revenue material showing that the land in dispute was decl revenue material showing that the land in dispute was decl to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates to Raja Ram (and others), and which, according to defendants, demonstrates title/allotment and their possession. title/allotment and their possession. Findings of the trial Court Findings of the trial Court 8. The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the The learned trial court after appreciating the revenue record and the oral evidence held that the entries in the Jama bandi and the Khasra Girdawari Ex. bandi and the Khasra Girdawari eld that the entries in the Jamabandi and the Khasra Girdawari consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants P1–P7 consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants consistently show plaintiff in cultivation and possession and the defendants have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to have not produced any material to show that they were in actual possession prior to d been cultivating the land for more than fifteen years and suit. The plaintiff had been cultivating the land for more than fifteen years and d been cultivating the land for more than fifteen years and suit. The plaintiff ha paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was paying batai. The plaintiff’s possession was thus established and the suit was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -4- decreed decreed decreed decreed restraining restraining restraining restraining the defendants the defendants the defendants the defendants from dispossessing from dispossessing from dispossessing from dispossessing the plaintiff or the plaintiff or the plaintiff or the plaintiff or e of law. cutting/removing his crops except by due course of law. cutting/removing his crops except by due cours Findings of the lower appellate court Findings of the lower appellate court 9. The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment The learned Additional District Judge, in the impugned judgment dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The dated 22.12.1997, reversed the judgement and decree of learned trial court. The lower appellate court relied inter alia upon Ex. lower appellate court relied state allotment entries Ex.D1 and the state allotment entries which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to which, it concluded, show that the land had been declared surplus and allotted to the defendants and the defendants belonged to ‘A’ category of tenants entitled to and the defendants belonged to ‘A’ category of tenants entitled to the defendants belonged to ‘A’ category of tenants entitled to allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners in allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners allotment and had paid installments and therefore had become owners possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s possession. The appellate court also noted alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his oral testimony. Particular reliance was placed on the fact that the plaintiff in his evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions evidence had not mentioned the alleged cutting of his crop on certain occasions n the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material and on the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material n the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material n the paucity of independent witnesses to support his case. On the material before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue before it the appellate court concluded that the presumption in favour of revenue entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and entries was rebutted and that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession and accordingly the trial court judgement and decree was set aside. trial court judgement and decree was set aside. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of learned counsel for the parties 10. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge on multiple grounds including that the learned Additional District Judge misdirected himself in law in treating Ex. misdirected himself in law in treating D1 and the allotment entries as D1 and the allotment entries as rship so as to displace the presumption conclusive proof of dispossession and ownership so as to displace the presumption rship so as to displace the presumption conclusive proof of dispossession and owne attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not attaching to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries. The appellate court did not properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced properly appreciate the close and contemporaneous revenue documents produced by the plaintiff as Ex. as Ex.P1–P7 and erred in placing deci sive reliance on the allotment P7 and erred in placing decisive reliance on the allotment document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. document without canvassing whether defendants proved continuous possession. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -5- Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction Even if land was allotted to the defendants, a suit for permanent injunction evidence of concerns possession and not the adjudication of title. The plaintiff’s evidence of concerns possession and not the adjudication of title. The plaintiff’s concerns possession and not the adjudication of title. The plaintiff’s continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief continued cultivation, supported by revenue entries, suffices to maintain relief unless the defendants prove dispossession by due process. unless the defendants prove dispossession by due process. unless the defendants prove dispossession by due process. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the plaintiff rm of continuous entries in Jamabandi and Khasra produced best evidence in the form of continuous entries in Jamabandi and Khasra rm of continuous entries in Jamabandi and Khasra produced best evidence in the fo 83 through 1994 and that these documents are public Girdawari for the years 1982–83 through 1994 and that these documents are public 83 through 1994 and that these documents are public Girdawari for the years 1982 documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was documents which attract a presumption of truth under the revenue law. It was by cogent evidence of contrary submitted that the presumption is rebuttable only by cogent evidence of contrary submitted that the presumption is rebuttable only submitted that the presumption is rebuttable only fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to fact establishing that entries are false or that there was actual dispossession prior to the suit. Learned c
Legal Reasoning
ounsel stressed that cutting of crop on a specific date does not Learned counsel stressed that cutting of crop on a specific date does not ounsel stressed that cutting of crop on a specific date does not te court wrongly equated the ipso facto prove dispossession and that the appellate court wrongly equated the ipso facto prove dispossession and that the appella ipso facto prove dispossession and that the appella plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. plaintiff’s alleged failure to remember certain dates with absence of possession. ounsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error Learned counsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error ounsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error ounsel further urged that the appellate court committed procedural error assing reasoned in considering additional material without hearing or without passing reasoned in considering additional material without hearing or without p in considering additional material without hearing or without p orders on objections. orders on objections. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that Ex. Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that Learned counsel for the respondents argued before this Court that D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been D1 is a public record of allotment which shows that the land in dispute had been he institution of the declared surplus and allotted to the respondents well before the institution of the declared surplus and allotted to the respondents well before t declared surplus and allotted to the respondents well before t suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and suit that the respondents paid installments and were thus owners in possession and the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari the plaintiff’s entries in revenue record were borne out of mistake by the patwari hat the lower the oral evidence of plaintiff suffers from contradictions and that the lower the oral evidence of plaintiff suffers from contradictions and t and the oral evidence of plaintiff suffers from contradictions and t appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the appellate court rightly found that the presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries stood rebutted. revenue entries stood rebutted. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -6- Findings 13. I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the I have considered the entire record, the revenue documents, the record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the evidence-on-record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the record, the reasons recorded by the two courts below and the counsel. submissions advanced by both the learned counsel. submissions advanced by 14. It is well-settled that entries in revenue records and entries i It is well n the settled that entries in revenue records and entries in the Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, Jamabandi attract a presumption of correctness. That presumption is, however, rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the rebuttable. The relevant question for the court in a suit for injunction is whether the party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and party who relies on the entries has proved possession by such entries and evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to supporting evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to evidence, and whether the other party has produced cogent material to displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual displace that presumption by showing that the entries are erroneous or that actual possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the possession was of the other party for the relevant period.In the present case the plaintiff produced contemporaneous revenue entries, namely plaintiff produced c P7, covering ontemporaneous revenue entries, namely Ex.s P1–P7, covering 83 through 1994. Those documents are not solitary a sequence of years from 1982–83 through 1994. Those documents are not solitary 83 through 1994. Those documents are not solitary a sequence of years from 1982 disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show disconnected entries. The Khasra Girdawari and successive entries show f. In a suit for protection of possession cultivation entries in favour of the plaintiff. In a suit for protection of possession f. In a suit for protection of possession cultivation entries in favour of the plaintif these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. these contemporaneous, recurring public documents are of high evidentiary value. D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour So far as Ex. D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour D1 is concerned, it shows allotment from the surplus pool in favour vant piece of evidence. Its of the respondents. An allotment document is a relevant piece of evidence. Its of the respondents. An allotment document is a rele of the respondents. An allotment document is a rele existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other existence, however, does not automatically or mechanically displace the other party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual party’s established factual possession shown by continuous entries and by actual uninterrupted cultivation. What is required is proof of actual dispossession and of uninterrupted cultivation. What is required is proof of actual dispossession and of cultivation. What is required is proof of actual dispossession and of paper does not prove that possession by the allottee. Mere production of allotment-paper does not prove that possession by the allottee. Mere production of allotment possession by the allottee. Mere production of allotment the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the the allottee had entered into and continued in possession in exclusion of the plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that the plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that plaintiff at all material times. The finding of the lower appellate court, that allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this allotment conclusively established the possession of respondent, overlooks this TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -7- point. On the appellant’s oral testimony and contradictions, t point. On the appellant’s oral testi he appellate court mony and contradictions, the appellate court 1’s testimony, including omission to mention relied on certain lacunae in PW-1’s testimony, including omission to mention 1’s testimony, including omission to mention relied on certain lacunae in PW ic acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be certain specific acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be ic acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be ic acts of cutting of crops at particular dates. Such omissions may be relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff relevant but they must be seen in the context of the whole case. The plaintiff 2), revenue documents and contiguous produced an independent witness (PW-2), revenue documents and contiguous 2), revenue documents and contiguous produced an independent witness (PW may have forgotten precise dates does not entries. The fact that a witness may have forgotten precise dates does not may have forgotten precise dates does not entries. The fact that a witness necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower necessarily overturn a continuing possession shown in the public record. The lower appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in appellate court appears to have weighed the omissions disproportionately and, in l appraisal of documentary and doing so, substituted its assessment for an overall appraisal of documentary and doing so, substituted its assessment for an overal doing so, substituted its assessment for an overal oral evidence. 15. Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to Coming to the crucial question whether respondent has been able to rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have rebut presumption or not, on the record before the court, the respondents have possession over the D1 but have not shown uninterrupted, exclusive possession over the D1 but have not shown uninterrupted, exclusive produced Ex. D1 but have not shown uninterrupted, exclusive suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The suit land in the face of the long series of entries produced by the plaintiff. The allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is allotment entry, standing alone and not coupled with proof of dispossession, is Khasra insufficient to displace the consistent entries in the Jamabandi and the Khasra insufficient to displace the consistent entries in the Jamabandi and the insufficient to displace the consistent entries in the Jamabandi and the Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the Girdawari which point to cultivation and possession of plaintiff. Further the D1 cured the deficiencies it found in appellate court failed to explain how Ex. D1 cured the deficiencies it found in D1 cured the deficiencies it found in appellate court failed to explain how plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these plaintiff’s oral evidence and produced positive proof of dispossession. In these nces the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the circumstances the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the nces the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the nces the presumption in favour of the revenue entries relied upon by the plaintiff remains unrebutted. plaintiff remains unrebutted. 16. It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the It was also noticed by the learned appellate court that during the pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff pendency of the suit, status quo was ordered by the trial court. The plaintiff A CPC alleging that the ereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC alleging that the ereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2 thereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2 defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate defendants had violated the order and cut the standing crop. The lower appellate TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -8- court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the court has referred to this circumstance and observed that while appearing in the aintiff did not mention the cutting of crops, and therefore drew witness box the plaintiff did not mention the cutting of crops, and therefore drew aintiff did not mention the cutting of crops, and therefore drew witness box the pl an inference adverse to his case. In the considered an inference adverse to his case. In , such considered opinion of this Court, such omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut omission is not fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. Even if the standing crop was cut oceedings, that act by itself would not establish that during the pendency of the proceedings, that act by itself would not establish that oceedings, that act by itself would not establish that during the pendency of the pr the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property the plaintiff was dispossessed of the land. Possession of immovable property cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the cannot be equated with removal of a single crop, nor does the omission of the self discredit the consistent chain of plaintiff in his testimony on that point by itself discredit the consistent chain of self discredit the consistent chain of plaintiff in his testimony on that point by it revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating revenue entries relied upon by him. The crucial question is who was in cultivating possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the possession of the land, and the plaintiff’s evidence on that score, supported by the revenue record, remains unshaken. revenue record, remains unshaken. 17. The lower he lower appellate court has further referred to D1 and observed appellate court has further referred to Ex. D1 and observed class tenants” or permissible tenants, and on that the defendants were shown as “A-class tenants” or permissible tenants, and on class tenants” or permissible tenants, and on that the defendants were shown as “A that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even that basis concluded that they must have been in possession of the suit land even nce, however, does not correctly reflect the legal prior to allotment. That inference, however, does not correctly reflect the legal nce, however, does not correctly reflect the legal prior to allotment. That infere class tenant” under the surplus position. The expression “permissible tenant” or “A-class tenant” under the surplus position. The expression “permissible tenant” or “A position. The expression “permissible tenant” or “A land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the land/allotment scheme refers to the category of tenants who are eligible under the from the surplus pool, and it does not by statute or scheme to receive allotment from the surplus pool, and it does not by from the surplus pool, and it does not by statute or scheme to receive allotment itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of itself mean that they were in actual physical possession of the specific parcel of land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and land which is subsequently allotted to them. The concept is one of entitlement and ossession still has to be established preference, not of factual possession. Actual possession still has to be established ossession still has to be established preference, not of factual possession. Actual p on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible on the evidence on record. Thus, merely because the defendants were eligible tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the tenants falling in the category of permissible tenants does not lead to the clusion of the conclusion that they were already cultivating the suit land in exclusion of the conclusion that they were already cultivating the suit land in ex conclusion that they were already cultivating the suit land in ex plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession plaintiff. Unless there is cogent proof that they had taken over physical possession TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-540-1998 (O&M) -9- prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s prior to the institution of the suit, the presumption attached to the plaintiff’s continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of continuous revenue entries cannot be displaced by invoking the label of ermissible tenants.” “permissible tenants.” 18. Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the Coming to the next argument, the respondents have relied upon the hsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) decision in Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) hsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) hsildar, Urban Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (2024) (1) Law Herald SC 356, where it was observed that a suit simplicite (1) Law Herald SC 356 r for injunction observed that a suit simpliciter for injunction not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. may not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. not be maintainable when the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant. By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue By relying upon that judgment learned counsel for the respondents seeks to argue that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable. That submission is distinguishable because, on the record of misplaced. The authority relied upon is distinguishable because, on the record of distinguishable because, on the record of misplaced. The a the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core the present case, the plaintiff does not seek any declaration of title and the core question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted question in controversy is possession. The fact that the land may have been allotted es not, without more, displace the plaintiff’s documentary in revenue records does not, without more, displace the plaintiff’s documentary es not, without more, displace the plaintiff’s documentary in revenue records do and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent and factual case of continuous cultivation and possession. In short, the precedent does not govern the specific facts of this litigation. does not govern the specific facts of this litigation. does not govern the specific facts of this litigation. Conclusion 19. submissions, I am of the Having considered the record and the rival submissions, I am of the Having considered the record and the rival Having considered the record and the rival view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.12.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dated Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dat Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dat Additional District Judge, Jagadhri are set aside and the judgment and decree dat 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri are restored. 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri are restored. 19.04.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri are restored. 20.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 September 23, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Speaking Whether speaking/non /No Whether reportable Whether reportable : Yes/No TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.24 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document